i see a government that has a proven track record for failure in managing anything to do with our money, except spending. Now they've proven they won't even listen to the people that put them in office, and you want me to believe that they're gonna do better now? Bull crap it's time for a political revolution.

Remove the traitors that have done this to the American people, and send the foreign born "Fearless Organizer" packing with an impeachment. This is ridiculous, wake up America!

I'm with you on this one, for sure. It is my plan to find out exactly how the politicians voted on this bill, and make sure to tell EVERYONE I possibly can to vote against them in the coming elections. Any one of these idiots who caved, put in pork, brokered a side deal, or generally ignored the will of The People needs to be sent a vicious message....

GET THE HELL OUT!!! DON'T COME BACK!! PRAY I DON'T FIND YOU!!!

Im with you on this one. from now on I vote incumbent only. Time for some REAL change...not the imaginary kind.

Er, how is voting for the person already in office going to change anything? Not understanding this....

Sorry Im retarded.....I was multitasking and missed a very important 3 letters..."non-"

_________________2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion

March 25th, 2010, 10:44 am

WarEr4Christ

QB Coach

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pmPosts: 3056Location: Elkhart, In.

BTW does anyone see a co-relation between what just happend on Capitol Hill and what's going on in the Biggest Loser show?

Mike the dumb azz from Chicago just stacked his team with all guys that are stronger, and will lose weight faster than the slower, weaker women.

Then when they win these big major challenges like pulling a semi-trailer, they celebrate as if it was the most impossible task to complete.

Then you look at the other team, and they struggle to do the same tasks but still complete them, and they get dejected and sometimes have to vote people off.

So here is the co-relation:

Nazi Pelosi celebrated Sunday, and the Democratic Party has been since, the "victory" (evisceration) of the medical reform bill. They had a stacked team, they bought, lied, stole, and cheated their way to the winning platform, and they are celebrating as if all is well and right in the world.

The other side is PISSED, and is vowing redemption and removal of the other side. For now they will win, but let's hope that November will see an enema brought to Capitol Hill, flushing out these turds who are destroying this country, and let's get back on the right path of LISTENING TO THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!

I haven't really said anything on this, as I've been reading and trying to understand more about the details. But one thing I've heard here and other places that really bothers me is this notion that pharmaceutical companies should have their profits limited. What most everyone is failing to realize is that these companies spend millions, and sometimes billions of dollars in R&D for new drugs, when the vast majority don't make it through all the testing, and even then sometimes drugs that pass testing don't make it through FDA approval. I believe it was 2008 that there were no new drugs approved by the FDA.

The background on this is that I'm currently in the MBA program at Duke, and we have one of, if not the best Health Sector Management programs in the country. We talk about health care companies all the time. Many of the pharma companies come here to recruit, and their financial data is provided so people can see how much they actually spend. The ones that do make big profits are when they hit on a really successful drug. Just like any other company that creates a successful product and receives the spoils of "victory".

The reason why this is all relevant is that pharma and health care companies in particular are going to have their profits reduced by the new health care bill. Just yesterday the Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that the goal is to reduce drug company profits by $90B over the lifetime of the bill! That's huge. Start taking away that money, I can virtually guarantee that companies will not have the money to invest in R&D and we'll see fewer and fewer new drugs coming to market. This is a real loss for all of us. Modern medicine is poised to make some pretty big jumps, as more and more is understood about the human genome. We are not too far removed from conceivably being able to have medicines prescribed to us that are linked with out specific genomic sequence, and can thus more directly fight our health issues. But if you cut back on the profits for these companies, they won't have the money to invest in the literally thousands of trials and failures it takes to find the ones that do work. It's a sad state of affairs that so many seem to be unable or unwilling to think about things and instead just demonize the pharma industry as the "bad guys".

From what I've heard, pharma piggybacks on university research and then sweeps in and takes over when there's a sure-fire money winner.

Well you heard wrong. Sure there is University research happening. But the pharma companies themselves spend exponentially more time and money on R&D than Universities do. It's a indisputable fact. The numbers don't lie.

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

I haven't really said anything on this, as I've been reading and trying to understand more about the details. But one thing I've heard here and other places that really bothers me is this notion that pharmaceutical companies should have their profits limited. What most everyone is failing to realize is that these companies spend millions, and sometimes billions of dollars in R&D for new drugs, when the vast majority don't make it through all the testing, and even then sometimes drugs that pass testing don't make it through FDA approval. I believe it was 2008 that there were no new drugs approved by the FDA.

The background on this is that I'm currently in the MBA program at Duke, and we have one of, if not the best Health Sector Management programs in the country. We talk about health care companies all the time. Many of the pharma companies come here to recruit, and their financial data is provided so people can see how much they actually spend. The ones that do make big profits are when they hit on a really successful drug. Just like any other company that creates a successful product and receives the spoils of "victory".

The reason why this is all relevant is that pharma and health care companies in particular are going to have their profits reduced by the new health care bill. Just yesterday the Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that the goal is to reduce drug company profits by $90B over the lifetime of the bill! That's huge. Start taking away that money, I can virtually guarantee that companies will not have the money to invest in R&D and we'll see fewer and fewer new drugs coming to market. This is a real loss for all of us. Modern medicine is poised to make some pretty big jumps, as more and more is understood about the human genome. We are not too far removed from conceivably being able to have medicines prescribed to us that are linked with out specific genomic sequence, and can thus more directly fight our health issues. But if you cut back on the profits for these companies, they won't have the money to invest in the literally thousands of trials and failures it takes to find the ones that do work. It's a sad state of affairs that so many seem to be unable or unwilling to think about things and instead just demonize the pharma industry as the "bad guys".

The pharma industry only has high profits because of government protection via the FDA. The FDA is not the enemy, but rather the ally of big pharma, because it significantly reduces competition.

You already alluded to this, but to get a drug past the FDA, you have to spend millions of dollars and years/decades in testing. This actually helps the companies because it limits the amount of potential drug companies that can enter the market.

These artificial barriers to entry (FDA testing) create an oligopoly in the pharma industry which profits are higher than they should be and the consumer gets screwed over.

Get rid of the FDA, drug prices will fall, profits will fall, more companies will enter the market and newer and better drugs will appear.

The retort to this line of reasoning goes something like: "But wait Blueskies! Many people will die without the FDA keeping our drugs safe!"

Not true. The companies themselves would have incentive to keep their drugs safe, because if they released an unsafe drug, no would ever purchase anything from them again, and they'd go under. Additionally, the FDA's delaying of drugs causes the deats of millions of people who needed the drugs to live.

Oh I agree that the structure of the system is messed up. All I'm saying is people piling on the pharma companies as the big bad guy is not a reflection of reality. I'm not saying that all pharma companies are angels and have no self interest. Of course they do. Every company has a self interest. But most everyone I've met at the pharma companies is in the industry because they want to help people, and most companies want to do the right thing, and make a profit by doing so.

Profits aren't evil. You can make money be doing good, and that's (generally) what pharma companies do.

_________________"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson

March 25th, 2010, 11:20 am

TheRealWags

Modmin Dude

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12488

regularjoe12 wrote:

TheRealWags wrote:

Er, how is voting for the person already in office going to change anything? Not understanding this....

Sorry Im retarded.....I was multitasking and missed a very important 3 letters..."non-"

I thought as much, just bustin your chops is all

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

March 25th, 2010, 11:47 am

regularjoe12

Off. Coordinator – Joe Lombardi

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 amPosts: 4180Location: Davison Mi

TheRealWags wrote:

regularjoe12 wrote:

TheRealWags wrote:

Er, how is voting for the person already in office going to change anything? Not understanding this....

Sorry Im retarded.....I was multitasking and missed a very important 3 letters..."non-"

I thought as much, just bustin your chops is all

it's all good. thanks for pointin that out to me...just cuz Im "special" doesn't mean I wanna look like it ALL the time

_________________2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion

March 25th, 2010, 12:54 pm

wjb21ndtown

I agree that attacking pharma companies is wrong. It may be true that pharma companies benefit from university research, but it is also true that the donate a lot of money to scholarship programs and grants for those universities.

That said, I wouldn't mind seeing their advertising restricted. I can't stand how they're allowed to keep listing ailments until they find one that you actually have and then tell you THIS IS THE PILL FOR YOU!!! It should be up to a qualified doctor to prescribe medication, not some average Joe sitting on his couch...

March 25th, 2010, 1:01 pm

TheRealWags

Modmin Dude

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12488

wjb21ndtown wrote:

That said, I wouldn't mind seeing their advertising restricted. I can't stand how they're allowed to keep listing ailments until they find one that you actually have and then tell you THIS IS THE PILL FOR YOU!!! It should be up to a qualified doctor to prescribe medication, not some average Joe sitting on his couch...

Agreed 100%

IMO the're as bad, if not worse, than your local "street pharmacist"

_________________

Quote:

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

March 25th, 2010, 2:18 pm

casskid

Varsity Captain

Joined: March 7th, 2007, 2:59 pmPosts: 324

Bye Rush.

March 25th, 2010, 2:24 pm

Blueskies

QB Coach

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 3084

Quote:

Oh I agree that the structure of the system is messed up. All I'm saying is people piling on the pharma companies as the big bad guy is not a reflection of reality. I'm not saying that all pharma companies are angels and have no self interest. Of course they do. Every company has a self interest. But most everyone I've met at the pharma companies is in the industry because they want to help people, and most companies want to do the right thing, and make a profit by doing so.

Profits aren't evil. You can make money be doing good, and that's (generally) what pharma companies do.

I didn't say profits were evil. While most people work for big pharma to help people, the executives at the top are mostly in it strictly for the profit. And that's fine, its their job, that's what they ought to do.

But, their profits are artificially inflated. In a free market they would be significantly less and thus I'm fine with attacking their profit margins.

March 25th, 2010, 3:08 pm

lightning_in_a_bottle

Pro Bowl Player

Joined: March 6th, 2006, 1:29 amPosts: 2490Location: The Terrordome

lightning_in_a_bottle wrote:

Seven years ago the late night news updates were about the beginning of an illegal war. Now they're about universal health care . What a difference seven years make. Obama and the Dems FTW.

Whose Waterloo? Look what Bush speechwriter David Frum has to say:

Quote:

WaterlooMarch 21st, 2010 at 4:59 pm by DAVID FRUM | No Comments |ShareConservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.

It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:

(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.

(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.

So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:

A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.

Follow David Frum on Twitter: @davidfrum

Due to the high volume of traffic this piece is receiving, comments have been suspended. We will restore comments once traffic returns to normal levels.

Former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum has resigned from the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, Frum announced on his Web site Thursday afternoon -- a move which suggests the conservative movement has cut ties with Frum over the straight talk he has been providing all week.

Following the passage of health care reform in the House, Frum made waves with a column for CNN.com declaring that health care had proven to been "Waterloo" for the GOP, not for Obama as Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) infamously suggested. Republican lawmakers quickly dismissed Frum, a prominent reformist conservative, as a mere "former staffer."

Then Frum said on "Nightline" that the Republican Party's lockstep with the Fox News attack machine has hurt the party, and that "we're discovering we work for Fox." That may have been the last straw for AEI President Arthur Brooks.

"I have been a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute since 2003. At lunch today, AEI President Arthur Brooks and I came to a termination of that relationship," Frum wrote on his Web site. The full text of his "resignation" letter is below:

Dear Arthur,This will memorialize our conversation at lunch today. Effective immediately, my position as a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute is terminated. I appreciate the consideration that delays my emptying of my office until after my return from travel next week. Premises will be vacated no later than April 9.

I have had many fruitful years at the American Enterprise Institute, and I do regret this abrupt and unexpected conclusion of our relationship.

_________________"If you worry about what the fans say, you’re going to be sitting with them."
-Jim Schwartz

March 25th, 2010, 3:52 pm

Blueskies

QB Coach

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 3084

The Democrats are doomed, healthcare reform or not.

Wait for 25% unemployment. Its coming.

March 25th, 2010, 4:08 pm

casskid

Varsity Captain

Joined: March 7th, 2007, 2:59 pmPosts: 324

What Democratic policies explicitly lead to unemployment? Surely you cant blame greater regulation for job loss.

Like I agree that the Dems will probably get blamed for this, but it seems more like they were handed a unsustainable economy and get to take the heat for it.

March 25th, 2010, 6:32 pm

njroar

QB Coach

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 amPosts: 3220

casskid wrote:

What Democratic policies explicitly lead to unemployment? Surely you cant blame greater regulation for job loss.

Like I agree that the Dems will probably get blamed for this, but it seems more like they were handed a unsustainable economy and get to take the heat for it.

The job loss is directly related to the economy. The economy is directly related to the business practices that the banks have been using since the Glass/Steagle Act got completely repealed by Clinton in 99. It started with Carter which led to the Savings and Loans Scandals in the 80's, and after the repeal we had the dot com crashes within 2 years.

This is exactly what happened prior to the Great Depresssion and the separation of what banks could do. Carter's Community Reinvestment Act started to repeal certain things. Just look up the Glass/Steagle Act and the Community Reinvestment Act and put the pieces together.

March 25th, 2010, 6:48 pm

TruckinMack

Lionbacker Rehab Guru

Joined: January 26th, 2006, 9:08 pmPosts: 1272

casskid wrote:

What Democratic policies explicitly lead to unemployment? Surely you cant blame greater regulation for job loss.

Like I agree that the Dems will probably get blamed for this, but it seems more like they were handed a unsustainable economy and get to take the heat for it.

That will be their excuse. They stink up the place and its the Rebulican's fault.

Reagan was handed an economy full of stinksht and his policies turned things around almost immediately.

Did the Libs give him credit for creating the wealth of the 80's. Nope. They started calling the yuppies names for being a spoiled generation who only cared about material things. They blamed Reagan for the rich getting richer. Well I don't know about the rich, but Reagan's IRA's have certainly given me economic security the Libs NEVER EVER would have provided.

The Libs want me dependent. Reagan conservatives want me free.

Sadly Reagan gave us George the first who stunk up the place and then George the second who followed in daddy's footsteps.

I'm hoping another Reagnite will rise from the ashes (Sarah Palin maybe?) and save us again.

But first the Libs will have to drive us to despair.

When BHO won the election I hoped he would be as liberal as possible just to show the country what liberlism is all about. Be careful what you wish for... You just might get it.

Will we wake up in time to save our future from a Stalinist, Socialist, Fascist state? The Nazi's are winning, but they haven't won yet.

_________________Climate Change - happening every second, of every minute of every day ever since the world was created. Needless to say it's man's fault.